On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:08 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Because if it's a show stopper, then so will be arch, monotone, or any of our other replacements (they all either store the entire repo on your disk, or have stuff in the working copy), and we will be stuck with cvs until everyone is happy to use up double/whatever disk.
Actually, having one copy of the entire repository might be cheaper than having several dozen double checkouts.
Yes, at some point the double space outruns the cost of the entire repo. For gcc, the cost of the entire repo is 4.4 gig right now. For your case, it might be cheaper to rsync the repo (unlike cvs, for each extra global revision to download, it's going to be 1 new file, and the old files won't be different. So it's going to be a *very fast* rsync), and export directly from that.
Since I think this is a very important point, I'm going to contribute a couple of supporting statistics...
The CVS repository is about 2.6GB.
3200989 cvsfiles
oh, wait, that includes wwwdocs and whatnot, sorry.
A complete CVS checkout is 260MB, or about 10% of the repository. If you've just got the one checkout, the checkouts win. I've got a dozen right now; from what I've been hearing, svk would be the biggest win for me.
You can't mix svn and svk commits against the same repo. It confuses svk (not svn).
You can use svk readonly, of course.
Actually, that's not quite right. While svk's depot must only be used by svk, the usual usage is to mirror a regular subversion repository with svk into a svk depot, then work with it from there using svk. Any changes in the svn repository are pulled in with svk sync, and any changes to the mirrored copy are applied to the backing subversion repository.
For more information: http://svk.elixus.org/?SVKUsage
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
